# C_2007223EN.01002001.xml

| 22.9.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 223/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.9.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 223/20

---

Action brought on 4 June 2007 — Marcuccio v Commission

(Case F-21/07)

(2007/C 223/35)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Luigi Marcuccio (Tricase, Italy) (represented by: G. Cipressa, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Defendant:

Form of order sought

| — | annul the implied decision (‘the contested decision’) rejecting the application of 30 December 2005 submitted by the applicant on 17 January 2006; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the implied decision (‘the contested decision’) rejecting the application of 30 December 2005 submitted by the applicant on 17 January 2006;

| — | annul, in so far as is necessary, the decision of the Appointing Authority dated 15 November 2006 rejecting the applicant's complaint against the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul, in so far as is necessary, the decision of the Appointing Authority dated 15 November 2006 rejecting the applicant's complaint against the contested decision;

| — | order the defendant to pay the applicant the compensation requested in the application of 30 December 2005, namely the sum of EUR 100 000, or such other sum as the Tribunal may consider just and equitable; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the applicant the compensation requested in the application of 30 December 2005, namely the sum of EUR 100 000, or such other sum as the Tribunal may consider just and equitable;

| — | order the defendant to pay the applicant the additional sum of EUR 50 000, or such other sum as the Tribunal may consider just and equitable, by way of compensation for the damage suffered after the date of the said application; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the applicant the additional sum of EUR 50 000, or such other sum as the Tribunal may consider just and equitable, by way of compensation for the damage suffered after the date of the said application;

| — | order the defendant to pay the applicant default interest at the rate of 10 % per annum, to be compounded annually from the date of the application of 30 December 2005 until actual payment and, more generally, until the notes complained of have been completely destroyed, or at the rate to be compounded and from the starting date which the Tribunal may consider just and equitable, on the sum of EUR 100 000 or such other sum as the Tribunal may consider just and equitable; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the applicant default interest at the rate of 10 % per annum, to be compounded annually from the date of the application of 30 December 2005 until actual payment and, more generally, until the notes complained of have been completely destroyed, or at the rate to be compounded and from the starting date which the Tribunal may consider just and equitable, on the sum of EUR 100 000 or such other sum as the Tribunal may consider just and equitable;

| — | order the defendant to destroy, without any further delay, the originals and all copies of the note of 20 February 2001, prot. 951883, the note of 15 November 2006 and, lastly, if it exists, the letter of 20 July 2006 to which the defendant refers in the note dated 15 November 2006; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to destroy, without any further delay, the originals and all copies of the note of 20 February 2001, prot. 951883, the note of 15 November 2006 and, lastly, if it exists, the letter of 20 July 2006 to which the defendant refers in the note dated 15 November 2006;

| — | order the defendants to notify the applicant when physical destruction has taken place, specifying in accordance with formal requirements, in respect of each document destroyed, the place in which it was located prior to destruction and all the facts relating to the time, place and act of physical destruction, in particular the date, place and person carrying out the same; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendants to notify the applicant when physical destruction has taken place, specifying in accordance with formal requirements, in respect of each document destroyed, the place in which it was located prior to destruction and all the facts relating to the time, place and act of physical destruction, in particular the date, place and person carrying out the same;

| — | order the defendant to pay the applicant the sum of EUR 100, or such other sum as the Tribunal may consider just and equitable, for each day's delay in destroying the documents, from the date of the judgment to be delivered until the applicant has actually been that notified that physical destruction has taken place, payable on the first day of each month in relation to rights accrued in that respect in the preceding month; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the applicant the sum of EUR 100, or such other sum as the Tribunal may consider just and equitable, for each day's delay in destroying the documents, from the date of the judgment to be delivered until the applicant has actually been that notified that physical destruction has taken place, payable on the first day of each month in relation to rights accrued in that respect in the preceding month;

| — | order the defendant to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The present case arises out of a number of statements contained in several notes attributable to the defendant, from which, according to the applicant, unlawful acts, deeds and conduct in relation to the processing of sensitive information concerning the applicant may be inferred.

In support of his claims, the applicant relies on the following three pleas in law:

| (1) | failure to state reasons in so far as, on the one hand, the applicant's application was rejected only by implication and, on the other, the reasons provided by the defendant in the note of 15 November are inconsistent, illogical and in the nature of a pretext; |
| --- | --- |

(1)

failure to state reasons in so far as, on the one hand, the applicant's application was rejected only by implication and, on the other, the reasons provided by the defendant in the note of 15 November are inconsistent, illogical and in the nature of a pretext;

| (2) | infringement of the law, since the applicant satisfies the conditions for entitlement to compensation for damage sought in his application of 30 December 2005, namely: unlawful acts, deeds and conduct on the part of the defendant; the occurrence of damage to the applicant; a causal connection between the damage alleged and the conduct complained of; |
| --- | --- |

(2)

infringement of the law, since the applicant satisfies the conditions for entitlement to compensation for damage sought in his application of 30 December 2005, namely: unlawful acts, deeds and conduct on the part of the defendant; the occurrence of damage to the applicant; a causal connection between the damage alleged and the conduct complained of;

| (3) | breach of the obligation to have due regard to the welfare of officials and of the principle of sound administration, given that the defendant failed to have due regard to the applicant's interests and did several acts and related deeds which, as a result of their grave unlawfulness and the considerable period of time during which they were committed, constituted a breach of that obligation and principle. |
| --- | --- |

(3)

breach of the obligation to have due regard to the welfare of officials and of the principle of sound administration, given that the defendant failed to have due regard to the applicant's interests and did several acts and related deeds which, as a result of their grave unlawfulness and the considerable period of time during which they were committed, constituted a breach of that obligation and principle.

---